The colors meant something but I can't remember what.

I can see it existing as a function of something being forced. Becoming tired of movies because they're all propaganda.

Which is an angle I hadn't thought of until this last comment you made.

In that case I think it's more a saturation point of something bad, a bit of lead in a well might be survivable for a moment, but long term the quantity you'll tolerate drops lower and lower.

But I think that's different from "Oh everybody loved it too long now they stopped" for something with consistent quality.

Assuming good faith.

I wasn't talking about "reality show" as a genre. It's a medium.

I'm talking about the shows themselves, including game shows.

Survior had been on the air for 24 years. Amazing Race almost as long. Game shows have had worse scandals than almost any industry and have a core set that have endured for nearly 30 years, and countless new versions and varients. Not a single one has failed and then had "genre fatigue" be blamed.

Because people don't get tired of what they enjoy. The "New shiny" phenomenon is one of distraction, not boredom. Producers and taste makers decide what get's made, not consumers. And if one of their ideas fails, well "genre fatigue" is a great unfalsifiable excuse.

Never mind that your version sucked ass because you're retarded. People don't hate star wars because sci fi is old. And they don't hate concord because FPSs are passe.

Is there Sports Fatigue? Romance Novel Fatigue? Skate Park Fatigue?

Of course not. The only things with "fatigue" are the ones where some worthless swill of humanity can blame their failure on it.

You really think that Marvel's decline is because people hate super heroes all of a sudden? Sure took a long time. A good 65 years. It's cause the movies are garbage. They were always garbage, but now they're even worse.

But you can't admit to making crap and shovelware. it has to be "Market conditions" and "shifts in taste" and "genre fatigue."

Genre fatigue does not exist and has never existed. The existence of any number of reality shows proves this.

Survivor being one example.

Things becoming corrupted by suits, rent seekers, and commies doesn't mean the things themselv3s were passe

I mean yeah.

It'd counter intuitive, you'd think more people and a larger organization means you can work on multiple projects. But in reality your ability to split focus shrinks as the size of the organization increases.

It's not even a criticism or a "flaw" it's just part of the logistics of really big numbers. It's hard to turn an aircraft carrier.

Which isn't what snowflake means either. Snowflake came out of the Tumblr bio novels. When you had 4 chronic diseases, 2 mental disorders, and your sensuality was 9 syllables because you had to be SO special.

It was Special Snowflake not Fragile Snowflake.

Part of it is Woke, but part of it is just fashion as well.

There were rumblings of "elevating design" and "integration of narrative approaches and luddite mechanical approaches" all the way back into 2009 when I was studying it.

Back then it was legitmate though, earnest developers with competing philosophy on how to do things and what was possible to achieve.

The divide was whether games were a innately storytelling medium or if games were sets of systems that could be used to tell stories. The divide was cordial though. And legitimate knowledgeable designers existed on both sides

There was a lot of talk about games being recognized as art and legitimate entertainment.

At the time the big example was GTA: San Andreas as a better example of society/freedom/accountability themselves than some more famous mainstream works.

The "Games as Art" movement started out of nerds' pathological desire to not be treated like pig slop for caring about something less sexy. It was an attempt to legitimize the medium and the hobby by people who never got over all the swirlies they got in middle school. Don't get me wrong, that was more bearable than the rent seekrs we have now, but it was still pathetic.

It being hijacked later on allows more talentless hacks to hide in the gears, and just like HR departments that grows over time.

Watched it once. Barely remember it.

Woah, look! A huge fag!

And neither one was funny.

Ol jossy boy was outstaying his welcome a long time ago. I never finished the marvel movies, I think the last one I watched was....Ragnarok? Maybe? I can't remember.

It was just so kitschy. To this day the only one I can rewatch, other than like Iron Man 1 and Cap 1, is Age of Ultron.

Those first two shows have always been horrible.

That's more or less what I'm getting at. It's a one eyed man thing. Smart relative to "most people" is a lot different than smart relative to "smart people"

110 is plenty of IQ to consider yourself "smart" but there's still a large number of people who are going to intellectually body you. And if you're in an environment full of them (technical lab etc.) It'll be aparent where you are.

If you're managing a mcdonalds with 110 IQ points it's going to be hard not to get a bit arrogant about it.

Yeah I'm aware you can't pin down anything not spelled out lol.

I feel like you didn't read my comment carefully.

But you've always had trouble with subtext.

It's an easy mistake to make.

115 is still considered "average" and being say, 114 and talking with somebody at 84, who just misses "average" by 1 point, is borderline impossible, and if the 84 is disagreeable, practically torture.

That 85 to 115 is 68% of people. If you're 116 you're close to being in a club with the top 30%.

Now "smart" can mean a lot of things, and the people who invent rocket ships probably aren't top 30%, or even top 5%. So there's a massive gap between "Smarter than almost everybody you'll ever meet" and "A very smart person relative to other competent people."

I haven't taken a test in a long ass time. So I don't know where I'd end up. What I do know is that day to day, the people who are slog to deal with far outnumber the ones with a scintillating intellect. On the other hand, when I do meet somebody who's obviously smarter than me, they run circles around me and it's not even close.

It's exponential in other words. And being +1, means you're smart, but being +2 means you're probably twice as smart as the +1 guy. It's a big gap.

I wrote something painfully long her. Not worth reading.

Short answer which is still too long:

It's like being an alien. I cannot be interested in the entertainment my coworkers talk about. I sit in meetings, and the entire table will laugh, and laugh hard, and a generic comment I have heard over 100 times. That they've all heard 100 times.

"well it IS monday!" hahahahahahahahhaha

They snicker like they've done something subversive and surprising.

Have you talked to somebody with Downs? The cheerful conversational ones that are pretty high functioning? You can like them and respect them and feel they're pleasant to be around. But you never ask them a question you need a real insight on.

That's how most conversations end up being.

To be more direct.

1. It depends how difficult the book is but generally yes. I could review books i read once 14 years ago. Of course there are smarter people than me, and they have written books and those ones take a bit more work, but most literature isn't a challenge. I expect that the way I feel about very chewy books might be how people with a lower IQ feel about books I find easy. As an example. I still don't REALLY understand what "studying" is. I just don't get how you can sit for hours internalizing the same information. I don't understand how to do it, I don't understand how it's effective. I don't get it. You read the thing, and then you've read it. Do you just read the same paragraph over and over? I don't understand it.

2. Small amounts of evidence is relative. I don't know. I don't think logic is necessarily tied to/dependent on IQ. If logic is the path, IQ is the engine. Your speed is important, but it doesn't help you not get lost. You can try more paths than others in the same amount of time, but again, speed doesn't help you navigate any better. As with many things, making good inferences is more about experience than anything else. It's less about having an instinct, vs knowing how much information you need to have before your instinct can actually connect the dots properly. Otherwise you're just guessing.

3. No. Maybe if you're an actual genius, which I am not. People do have facets and areas they are drawn to and better at. When i took the SAT, I did entire sections of the language test without reading the passages, and in some cases I even started skipping the questions themselves. I scored in the 99th percentile. I've always been able to do that, and I've tried multiple times to teach it and failed. It just works. My Math score was decidedly mid list 56th or something if I remember right. I'm also absolute shit at spatial reasoning, and partially prosopagnostic. These are things I cannot do regardless of how hard I try.

The irony of the whole "wizards deny goblins access to wands" coming from an anti-gun commentator will always be tasty.

I forget which reviewer or TLJ it was who said the whole movie being jar jar links jerking off of on John Wayne's grave would also be unexpected.

None of this is specified in any of the books or movies. Idk where it comes from. The Muggle Protection Act in the books is referenced completely without any specifics whatsoever other than that Arthur wrote it and Lucius opposed it.

Lucius IS raided by the government specifically under the muggle protection act, but the purview he's describing at the time is poisons and torture devices.

In any case. Old Rolling Pin has never been good at political commentary. In her world the news is completely controlled by high class elitists who want the population at large to be disarmed and specifically not trained in self defense.

The government is irredeemably corrupt, and attempts to ruin the reputation of any populist leader that refuses to work for them. One of its primary excesses is attempting to exercise control over independent organizations such as Hogwarts which are held up as examples of private institutions who should be allowed to hire who they like and set their curriculum.

And then Dumbledore as that school's head specifically hires incompetents based on non-work related factors which leads to near deaths of children, cronyism, and rampant institutional abuse. This is all framed as wrong and misguided but for understandable reasons.

Frankly it's great.

That's they're biggest crime innthe end.

Stories are immortal and IP laws are fake and gay. Star Wars will always live on due to those facts.

But the big three reuniting is an opportunity that HAS been squandered forever with no possible recourse. That chance is gone forever.

And why? Because it would have been "derivative" too "expected".

Well quite. I got married recently, but I plan to never have sex with my wife cause that'd be too cliche.

We can't make people happy, that's WAY to obvious.

Everyone AC multi-player is mentioned I have to comment as it's the best multi-player game that has ever existed and I miss it more than most of my dead relatives.

ACIII. Get on my level bitch

Morality is the only thing you can legislate other than logistics.

Everything else is just negotiating and claptrap.

You cum guzzling mongrel